|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: Surprise, Surprise! Iraq War Was About Oil |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Afghanistan may be the graveyard of empires, but Iraq is home to a graveyard sense of humor. Iraqis wonder aloud whether the U.S. and Britain would have invaded Iraq if its main export had been cabbages instead of oil.
However obvious the answer, a remarkable array of American pundits and pseudo-savants have resisted giving the oil factor any pride of place among the motives behind the U.S./U.K. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To this day, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) continue to play the accustomed role as government accomplice suppressing unwelcome news.
So, if you don�t tune in to Amy Goodman�s Democracy Now or read the British press, you will have missed the latest documentary evidence showing that Great Britain�s Lords and Ladies lied about how big oil companies, like BP, lusted after Iraqi oil in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq.
Oil researcher Greg Muttitt�s new book Fuel on Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq presents that evidence, since Muttitt had better luck than American counterparts in getting responses to his Freedom of Information requests.
After a five-year struggle, he obtained more than 1,000 official documents which � how to say this � do not reflect well on the peerage, the captains of the oil industry, and the government of Tony Blair.
On April 19, the British Independent published a major story about these disclosures, which America�s FCM have avoided like the plague.
Quoting the released British documents, the Independent showed BP salivating over an expected windfall of Iraqi oil, with the saliva politely sponged up by Foreign Office functionaries. From the Independent:
�The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq �post regime change.� Its minutes state: �Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there.� �
�Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had �no strategic interest� in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was �more important than anything we�ve seen for a long time� � it [BP] was willing to take �big risks� to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.�
Of course, BP was singing a different tune for the average folks. Lord Browne, then-BP chief executive, insisted on March 12, 2003, a week before the invasion of Iraq: �It is not, in my or BP�s opinion, a war about oil.�
The official documents, however, offer a contradictory account. Gosh, would BP officials lie?
The minutes of a similar meeting with BP and Shell on Oct. 31, 2002, reinforce the point. They show then-British Trade Minister, Lady Symons, agreeing that British oil companies must not lose out in competing for Iraqi oil, particularly �if the U.K. had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the U.S. government throughout the crisis.�
Prime Minister Tony Blair was equally disingenuous in his public remarks. On April 19, Democracy Now ran a brief clip in which British author Muttitt called to mind Blair�s assurances to a TV audience on Feb. 6, 2003, six weeks before the war: �The idea that we�re interested in Iraq�s oil is absurd, it�s one of the most absurd conspiracy theories you can imagine.�
Muttitt pointed out that, as Blair was saying this, a secret (until now) Foreign Office document setting out British strategy toward Iraqi oil asserted, �Britain has an absolutely vital interest in Iraq�s oil.�
The London Mail Online on April 20 summed up the contradictions with classic English understatement. It noted that the flurry of meetings between oil executives and the Labour government in late 2002 �appear to be at odds with their insistence Iraq�s vast oil reserves were not a consideration ahead of the March 2003 invasion.�
|
Full Article |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After a comfortable General Election victory in 2005, failure of any impeachment attempts and the complete withdrawal of British troops does anyone in the UK really care?
So what if it was about oil, Iraq will be better off without Saddam and will receive billons from its vast oil exports. They could still mess it up by going the fundamentalist route but that will be their choice, we gave them a chance.
Anyway oil is the foundation of modern society without which our world today is impossible. Therefore I do not quite understand when people roll their eyes and say "It's all about oil" as if it�s an unimportant thing. Unless you have the secret to nuclear fusion in your back pocket oil is for better or worse everything.
As for Iraq the biggest western consumers of Iraqi oil before 2003 were France and Germany, two of the most fervent anti war nations, that is an oil connection often missed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
So what if it was about oil, Iraq will be better off without Saddam and will receive billons from its vast oil exports. |
When, and will it be worth the thousands of deaths that occurred because of this transition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
After a comfortable General Election victory in 2005, failure of any impeachment attempts and the complete withdrawal of British troops does anyone in the UK really care?
So what if it was about oil, Iraq will be better off without Saddam and will receive billons from its vast oil exports. They could still mess it up by going the fundamentalist route but that will be their choice, we gave them a chance. |
Iraq is now better off? After a million dead, the country massively polluted with depleted uranium, no infrastructure left, and most people worse off than under Saddam? Oil exports still have not reached pre-invasion levels. Just WTF are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq under Saddam was a country that was always heading towards armaggedon. A 20% minority Sunni dictatorsip lording it over the rest of the country would not last indefinitely. I am just glad for the sake of the Iraqis that it at least had the supervison and investment of the coalition to help it through its transition.
If the coalition had not intervened in Iraq the best you could have hoped for was Quday/Usay taking over or maybe a military coup to prolong the dictatorship for decades longer.
If the UK/USA are to feel shame over Iraqi deaths then it is the sanctions and the perpetual war of our no fly zones that should be the cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Anyway oil is the foundation of modern society without which our world today is impossible. Therefore I do not quite understand when people roll their eyes and say "It's all about oil" as if it�s an unimportant thing. Unless you have the secret to nuclear fusion in your back pocket oil is for better or worse everything. |
So you're fine with your country's military killing getting any hypothetical number of foreigners killed so long as it results in a steady oil supply? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq is now better off? After a million dead, the country massively polluted with depleted uranium, no infrastructure left, and most people worse off than under Saddam? Oil exports still have not reached pre-invasion levels. Just WTF are you talking about?[/quote]
I understand you are very passionate about this subject but your passion leads to make silly statements like the above.
No infrastructure left? What nothing...nothing?
Massively polluted: I doubt the shell casings can compare to the environmental catastrophe that Saddam unleashed during the Gulf war�s or the destruction of the Marsh Arabs land.
Most people worse off: Not if you are a Kurd or a Shia so that is about 80% of the country.
This did not begin in 2003 the bombing campaigns, no fly zone and sanctions had already committed the UK and US to waging a low level war of attrition against the Iraqi state.
What did that achieve? Nothing, just the enrichment of Saddam and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Dying at a time when no one cared, no 1 million man marches in London in 1994, 1998, 2000.
I don�t care why they went into Iraq, I am not a Labour supporter or a Republican. All I care about is that the US and UK governments did what they could to try a sort a problem that was by and large caused by them. That the Coalition has been defeated in many ways has no bearing on whether or not it was right to go in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're fine with your country's military killing getting any hypothetical number of foreigners killed so long as it results in a steady oil supply?[/quote]
No its just that these considerations should not discussed as if they are not important. The point begins and ends with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| No its just that these considerations should not discussed as if they are not important. |
Either preventing the murder of civilians is paramount compared to economic concerns, or it isn't. If it is, then oil really is not an important consideration when it comes to war, since such economic concerns would never be able to trump the inevitable civilian casualties. If it isn't, then you're essentially saying an economy driven by murder (not incidental or accidental death, mind you, but rather genuine murder) is ethically acceptable in your eyes so long as the casualties don't exceed some arbitrary number at which point you might begin to take issue.
So which is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| No its just that these considerations should not discussed as if they are not important. |
Either preventing the murder of civilians is paramount compared to economic concerns, or it isn't. If it is, then oil really is not an important consideration when it comes to war, since such economic concerns would never be able to trump the inevitable civilian casualties. If it isn't, then you're essentially saying an economy driven by murder (not incidental or accidental death, mind you, but rather genuine murder) is ethically acceptable in your eyes so long as the casualties don't exceed some arbitrary number at which point you might begin to take issue.
So which is it? |
I apologise if I was not making myself clear, my original point was that people should not underestimate the importance of oil. i do not think though that the war was about oil, it was however a strategic consideration along with fabled WMD.
I am more on the side of our intelligence agencies and government being incompetent as opposed to them being masters of global intrigue.
Also your question doesn't exist in reality though does it? No country has ever or will ever act in one way, either putting economic concerns before everything else or ethical considerations. It will always be a balance so I obviously fall into the category of setting an acceptable number.
Forgive me if I have misinterpreted, but from the wording of your question you sounded as if that choice was a bad one. However, as that is the only choice how can it be seen as either good or bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
Also your question doesn't exist in reality though does it? |
It certainly does. For nations that go around invading other nations for economic reasons, the answer is clearly that the preservation of civilian life is not paramount to them. For nations that do not go around invading other nations, the answer may or may not be that preservation of civilian life is paramount (we cannot know for certain). I see no reason to treat this as a theoretical question; I can answer with regards to my preferred policy positions, and (unfortunately, given the answer) I can answer it with regards both my and your nation's policy positions.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Forgive me if I have misinterpreted, but from the wording of your question you sounded as if that choice was a bad one. However, as that is the only choice how can it be seen as either good or bad? |
It's not the only possible choice, especially in a nation with a popular government which is accountable to its citizens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have already stated that I think it is a balance on the basis of what we see in practice. I see no evidence of aims being 'paramount' in the sense that one aim (economic or otherwise) is given so much more consideration as to make the others unimportant.
Even if you considered Iraq an oil grab can you provide me with any examples of UK/US military actions that gave no consideration and no measures to help limit civilian casualties?
To further clarify my point my argument is that it is always a balance and by balance I don�t mean a theoretical extreme, some perfect equilibrium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
Even if you considered Iraq an oil grab can you provide me with any examples of UK/US military actions that gave no consideration and no measures to help limit civilian casualties?
|
If they seriously cared about limiting civilian casualties, they would not engage in needless warfare. It's that simple. You can talk about a balance all you like, but what you're neglecting is that what you're talking about is a balance regarding how many people it's acceptable to murder for profit. The fact that many of both your and my countrymen are so nonchalant about such things is precisely why it actually happens. "Oh, it's just a balance," they say with calm indifference; I'm sure the young boy whose family just got murdered in the name of that "balance" feels otherwise. These are people's lives you're talking about.
Tolerating a "balance" means tolerating sociopathic, for-profit murder so long as it's pursued in moderation. This is what you're defending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
I am more on the side of our intelligence agencies and government being incompetent as opposed to them being masters of global intrigue. |
Nobody accused Bush and Blair of being "masters of global intrigue." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
Even if you considered Iraq an oil grab can you provide me with any examples of UK/US military actions that gave no consideration and no measures to help limit civilian casualties?
|
Why would this be relevant? Is anyone stating that "no consideration" is the only consideration that warrants a moral failure?
Last edited by Menino80 on Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
